Donald J. Trump Is Full of It on Syria — It Was Him Who Used Kurds for Raqqa and the Oil Fields

Kurds now protected where they are occupiers, but Empire invites their mortal enemies into their actual home

The ‘good old days’ of US forces wearing YPG Pinko-Commie Kurdish patches

Editor’s note: Brett McGurk was US Special Envoy to Syria which in practice meant envoy to the Syrian Kurds. As such he is no doubt biased but he is not wrong. His Tweet chain is a valuable memory jog.

McGurk is right to point out it was under Trump that the US guided the Kurds to turn southward and take Raqqa which they themselves had little interest in, and to then proceed with the “Race for the Euphrates” and to snatch Syria’s oil fields on the Euphrates right-bank ahead of the advancing Syrian army racing to lift the Siege of Deir Ezzor.

Trump’s claim that Kurds were paid “massive amounts of equipment” for this is bellied by the fact that to this day the YPG remains a light infrantry force with some US-supplied mine-resistant armored cars, but next to no artillery, or armor.

Trump may not have initiated the alliance with Syrian Kurds, he may not have liked it either. But he did go along with it, and it was under him that the relationship expanded into US armored car shipments that were driving Turks crazy, and the taking of vast swathes of Arab-populated eastern Syria to deny it to the advancing Syrian government.

Now we are in a situation where the US is still “protecting” the YPG in the Arab-populated south from the Syrian government army, as a way to deny eastern Syria to its legal government, but is inviting the Turks with their coterie of jihadists lite into the northern border zone where Kurds actually do live and where their main demographic enclaves are found.

Kurds are protected where they are occupiers, but where they actually live and where their ethnic enclaves are actually located their mortal enemy is invited to conquer them, and to replace them with ethnic Arab refugees ejected from Turkey.

That is indeed the height of cynicism.

And that is what makes it a true stab in the back, rather than a mere divorce. A disengagement respectful of the services the Kurds have provided the Empire as garbage men cleaning up its mess in granting ISIS a huge swathe of Syria, as well as temporarily denying it to Assad themselves, would have instead entailed a US retreat which commenced from the south, but for the time being kept checking Erdogan in the north, thus granting the Kurds the space and time to make a security arrangement against their mortal enemy with Damascus and the Russians instead.

The US is keeping the Syrian Army from moving north into N.E. Syria and allowing the Turkish Army to move south. This is the single worst policy for the Kurds. There is no good policy for the Kurds, but allowing the Turks to prey on them is the worst.

They are not allowed to reconcile with Syria & the Syrian Army has not been allowed north of the Euphrates. And the Turkish Army is being handed parts of the north. The Kurds living in that zone will be sitting ducks.

American soldiers may be left in the unenviable position of holding down the Kurds in the south while Turkey rapes them in the north. The grim truth is that only by allowing the return of Syrian sovereignty & military protection over the north could this have been avoided. pic.twitter.com/nIaQA3Onug

The SDF suffered thousands of casualties in the Raqqa battle. Not a single American life was lost. Trump later expanded the operation down the ERV. He touts these operations in political rallies but without apparent thought as to who did the fighting and dying.

The SDF suffered thousands of casualties in the Raqqa battle. Not a single American life was lost. Trump later expanded the operation down the ERV. He touts these operations in political rallies but without apparent thought as to who did the fighting and dying.

The weapons provided were meager and just enough for the battle against ISIS. (The SDF cleared IEDs by purchasing flocks of sheep.) They were not “paid massive amounts of money and equipment” (as Trump said today). Nearly all stabilization funding came from the @coalition.

Second: the United States did not partner with SDF over realistic alternatives. Both Obama and Trump developed and considered options to work with the Turkey-backed opposition, which is unfortunately riddled with extremists, many tied to al Qaeda.

Nonetheless, our best military planners spent months with counterparts in Turkey across both administrations. The only available Turkey-approved option in NE Syria would have required tens of thousands of American troops. Two U.S. presidents rejected that option.

Third: the United States is not “holding” ISIS detainees in Syria. They are all being held by the SDF, and barely so given meager resources. State and DOD Inspectors General have covered this in depth. Summary here 👉 https://t.co/aFQ3RSyx6U

Turkish entry by force into NE Syria risks fracturing the SDF, pulling its fighters out of former ISIS strongholds, abandoning ISIS prison facilities, and making it impossible for U.S. forces to stay on the ground in small numbers with an acceptable level of risk.

Fourth: It was the Trump administration that dramatically expanded the Syria mission in 2018 beyond ISIS to include staying on the ground until Iran left Syria and the civil war was resolved (meaning many years). Another example of maximalist objectives for a minimalist POTUS.

Indeed, the administration expanded the mission and policy aims in Syria while Trump cut U.S. resources by more than 50 percent, leaving our people on the ground scrambling with no backup from the president himself. Misaligned ends/means = policy incoherence & risk.

Trump then (twice) abruptly reversed course after 1) a foreign leader call and 2) without consulting his own military advisors. If anyone still believes Trump cares about Syria, they’re mistaken. He doesn’t and his erratic swings heighten risk to our personnel on the ground.

Finally: the U.S. leads a @coalition that includes over 80 countries and nearly two dozen contributors to the military and/or stabilization mission in Syria. Leading a coalition requires consultation with coalition partners before major decisions are taken. This is elementary.

The consequences of such unreliability from the Oval will reverberate well beyond Syria. The value of an American handshake is depreciating. Trump today said we could “crush ISIS again" if it regenerated. With who? What allies would sign up? Who would fight on his assurances?

Bottom line: These are matters of war and peace, life and death. Our military personnel, friends and allies, deserve deliberation and thought before decisions are made (the essence of “command”). Erratic swings favor far more patient adversaries in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.